Does civility matter?

In the aftermath of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords , there has been a lot of talk about the poisonous and violent character of American political rhetoric, and the way in which this may be corroding society. But is it reasonable to expect society to handle profound differences without brutality and rudeness? In particular, religious discussion seems to attract ferocity and dismissal of other people's opinions. This raises some deep questions. Is society possible without civility? Is politeness itself dishonest and damaging when carried beyond a certain point? Should there be different standards of politeness when discussing facts and values – is it possible or even desirable to be as rude as you like about someone's factual claims while respecting their expressions of value? Monday's response Steven Hepburn: Being right is not the same as being better. That should be the starting point of civil discourse Wednesday's response Stephen Tomkins: Insult-free arguments are more persuasive ... but then there's the time I called creationism 'a bottomless pit of deliberate stupidity' Friday's response Tim Skellett: Genuine civility equalises power relations and allows those who are quieter to be heard too